why do catholics claim to be christians with stuff like this in their history?

Because Christianity is a belief system that worships a God which is shared by Catholicism and is not shared by Mormonism.
Mormonism is based on a fantasy of a failed Catholicism. Mormonism has anti-Catholic roots which can still be seen in ad hominem attacks as you have displayed here.

Mormonism has anti-Catholic roots which can still be seen in ad hominem attacks as you have displayed here.

It’s funny that you’re making that claim on a thread that was created for the purpose of bashing mormons, with hundreds of posts attacking the mormon church. You people know that mormons are on this forum, you expect us not to defend ourselves or our faith? you’re being rediculous.

I’ve noticed that most of you catholics are not responding to the things I am posting on this anti-mormon thread. Seems you catholics have no problem with bashing mormons but are unable to look at your own dirty laundry. surprise surprise.

I’ve noticed that most of you catholics are not responding to the things I am posting on this anti-mormon thread.

I responded to your original post:

The Mormon nature of God was never believed by the earliest Christians or current Christians.
Greek philosophy is a tool used by Christians to better explain their belief in the nature of God.
While the earliest Christians had various understandings to how the three persons related to each other, they worships only one being; not three beings like Mormons do.

ok, here is my response to that. History shows and most scholars agree that Greek philosophy was not just a “tool used by Christians to better explain their belief in the nature of God”. It was actually used to deveolp the concepts of who God is. Your view of it is a catholic lie.
Here is another interesting link for you, it shows that the catholic church membership in the U.S. is TANKING while the LDS membershipis holding steady. Could it be that in the age of the internet the catholic church can no longer hide behind their lies and the horrors of their history?http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

So why do you use the same New Testament which wasn’t settled until the late 4th century basically to thwart heresies?
See my issue is they claim there’s an apostasy, use the same New Testament, do not accept the books reformers took out of the Old Testament which that same synod confirmed. Also if you study the supposed apostasy you realize there was one right in the early days of Mormonism following Smith’s death. Seriously I came to the conclusion studying with missionaries that if I am to believe an apostasy occurred in the early church, which it didn’t and to say one did is a slap in the face to all of the martyrs who died defending Christ, but if I’m supposed to believe that then there was one in Mormonism as well. You know the Church in Independence Missouri? It’s not one Church. There’s different sects of Mormonism too. Apostasy.

Not responding to ad hoc tidbits about how certain members of the church (who are men mind you) have acted is grounds to reject the tremendous amounts of empirical evidence that in fact the Catholic church is the church of Jesus Christ himself?

Seems like your argument is such:

P1: Members of church have done wrong
P2: Christ’s church wouldn’t allow for this
C: Therefore, your church is false

Do you apply this logic to your faith? Joseph Smith and the Mormon church, in general, have much more to answer for than does the Catholic church. Have you ever visited Mormonthink.com or do your bishops tell you this website is banned. Do your homework. Stop blindly defending your faith.

This is a horribly misguided way to argue your case. Everyone in the faith is aware of the various scandals that have been associated with the church and most non-revisionist accounts of history exonerate the faith of the claims against it. However, yes individual men in the church have committed atrocities. Is this grounds to move one to abandon the faith. I think not. You might want to start with doctrine and dogma as a way of reducing the church to absurdity before arguing along the lines you are. If you do this however you will end up where our Protestant friends end up: debating the semantic nature of linguistic interpretations of the scriptures. As when all is said and done. And one has invested enough time doing the research: it all leads back to one conclusion. The Catholic church is the only chruch which contains the fullness of faith.

We follow the Church in freedom. Moral goodness and the true faith, are what we believe we follow when we follow Church teachings. One’s submission to moral teaching is given freely. What Lumen Gentium says, is that we should submit to the infallible teachings of the Church. The Church is only infallible in matters of faith and morals.

What Dignitatis Humanae says, is that we freely follow our conscience. What we hold as the true faith, as Catholics, is that a Christian conforms her/his conscience to Jesus Christ, whose teaching were entrusted to His Bride, the Church. To force one’s will violates the freedom of another, therefore, Lumen Gentium is not saying the Church is forcing anything on us. It is saying that infallible teachings require accent of will. That accent is given freely by us.

No Catholic is called into a worthiness interview, to ensure that accent has been given. Part of forming a Christian conscience is examination of ones own conscience, and asking God for forgiveness of our sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Which also, we freely participate in. Our priests aren’t making appointments for us.

Likewise, all people have the same religious freedom. This does not mean that truth is relativistic, it means that the freedom of conscience must be respected. This includes Mormons.

That does not mean we cannot debate or dialogue. What we cannot do is force our beliefs onto another. Which, is impossible to do on an Internet forum, so no worries, no one here is trying by force of will to remove your freedom of conscience.

ok, here is my response to that. History shows and most scholars agree that Greek philosophy was not just a “tool used by Christians to better explain their belief in the nature of God”. It was actually used to deveolp the concepts of who God is. Your view of it is a catholic lie.
Here is another interesting link for you, it shows that the catholic church membership in the U.S. is TANKING while the LDS membershipis holding steady. Could it be that in the age of the internet the catholic church can no longer hide behind their lies and the horrors of their history?http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Hello, the Catholic Church does not teach, and we do not believe, that faith and reason are separate from each other. God created us, as rational creatures, with the ability to reason. Reason and faith go together. We hold no belief that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is absent from reason.

Greek philosophy did not develop the doctrine of the Trinity. The belief in One God, is a central and original doctrine of Christianity. Reasoning out how to explain or describe the doctrine developed over time.

My two cents: I would be suspicious of a religion that is so suspicious of reason.

I have read this article before, and I do think it’s fairly written, but it misses some crucial data and can be misleading. So, we are going to examine some of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, mainly the apologist and Origen since they wrote most extensively on the subject, whereas other Fathers like Irenaeus are much more vague and can be interpreted a number of different ways. We’re also going to put most of the focus on the Son since there are no extensive writings on the Holy Spirit in the early Church that give exact details to his nature.

First, it must be acknowledge that a Trinity has been there from the start of the Church; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always been put in conjunction with each other, and we know for a fact that the earliest Christians worshiped Jesus Christ and prayed to him. The real question is, how did the earliest Christians see the nature of the Trinity. Well, as already said, a lot of the earliest Fathers are silent on this and can be interpreted numerous ways including in an orthodox Trinitarian way.

One thing that is evident is that the earliest Christians were strongly anti-anthropomorphism. This can be easily demonstrated within the New Testament itself as can be seen in John 4:24 and Colossians 1:15 for example, but also in other early Christians writings such as 2 [Pseudo] Clement, Chapter 20 (115 A.D), where the author calls God the “invisible Father of truth”, and in Melito of Sardis (160 A.D) who writes, “There is that which really exists, and it is called God. He, I say, really exists, and by His power doth everything subsist. This being is in no sense made, nor did He ever come into being; but He has existed from eternity, and will continue to exist for ever and ever. He changeth not, while everything else changes. No eye can see Him, nor thought apprehend Him, nor language describe Him; and those who love Him speak of Him thus: `Father, and God of Truth.’” We also see the Church Fathers vehemently oppose any notion of God being a physical being, but rather that he is spirit (Tatian the Syrian, Address to the Greeks, Chapter 4 [170 A.D]; Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians, Chapter 10 [175 A.D]; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:13:3 [190 A.D]). There was a 3rd century movement in the Church that adopted Stoic philosophy of spirit as a different kind of matter and applied it God (we find Church Father Tertullian teachings this), but it died out within a century or so.

Moving on, let us investigate the nature of he Son in the early Church, which no doubt, is the most interesting aspect of this.

Ignatius of Antioch, the first Father we will look at, is very notable for his high Christology. He identifies Jesus a God on numerous occasions, “that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians 1 [105 A.D]), “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,— even Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians 7 [105 A.D]), “the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 1 [105 A.D]), “I pray for your happiness for ever in our God, Jesus Christ, by whom continue ye in the unity and under the protection of God” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to Polycarp [100 A.D]), " Clearly, we find some very striking language about Jesus in the writing of Ignatius, he seems to elevate Christ to having the same nature as God and therefore himself God.

More interestingly than Ignatius, we will look at Melito of Sardis, who was also notable for his high Christology. He writes, “We are not those who pay homage to stones, that are without sensation; but of the only God, who is before all and over all, and, moreover, we are worshippers of His Christ, who is veritably God the Word existing before all time.” (Melito of Sardis, Syriac Fragments, Apology to Marcus Aurelius [175 A.D]), “He that bore up the earth was borne up on a tree. The Lord was subjected to ignominy with naked body-God put to death, the King of Israel slain!” (Melito of Sardis, Syriac Fragments, On Faith 6 [165 A.D]), “For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise, He gave us sure indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages.” (Melito of Sardis, Syriac Fragments, On the Nature of Christ, [160 A.D]), and now onto the most interesting, “On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion, -appearing as a sheep, yet still remaining the Shepherd; being esteemed a servant, yet not renouncing the Sonship; being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant, yet not discarding the eternity of His nature; being invested with a body, yet not circumscribing the unmixed simplicity of His Godhead; being esteemed poor, yet not divested of His riches; needing sustenance inasmuch as He was man, yet not ceasing to feed the entire world inasmuch as He is God; putting on the likeness of a servant, yet not impairing the likeness of His Father. He sustained every character belonging to Him in an immutable nature: He was standing before Pilate, and at the same time was sitting with His Father; He was nailed upon the tree, and yet was the Lord of all things.” (Melito of Sardis, Syriac Fragments, Discourse on the Cross [160 A.D]) Melito identified Jesus as having the same nature of the Father, keep in mind, this is only the mid second century, about 165 years before the Council of Nicaea

We are going to continue with the Fathers, moving onto the apologist and then Origen which I will detail in my next post as this is getting long and will exceed the current word limit on CAF. I might wait until tomorrow to write the rest as it will be the most comprehensive and will take me very long to write and multiple posts.